Wrong direction on animal cruelty

Published 6:37 pm, Wednesday, March 13, 2013

As a state we should be moving toward more humane treatment of animals -- but we seem intent on going in the opposite direction.

We should join states and nations that ban the use of barbaric leghold or suffocation traps as methods of hunting. Instead, even a benign bill to merely limit trap placement to where children would be less likely to step in them has been beaten down by the state Department of Energy & Environmental Protection and so-called sportsmen groups.

A similar child-safety bill has been introduced this year. It will face the same vehement opposition.

Worse, not only do we refuse to ban these particular medieval devices, but we're now looking to bring back another form of weaponry against animals that we had outlawed in years past.

A bill is currently before the state Legislature that would reintroduce the snare as an acceptable form of hunting.

In Raised Bill No. 1018 resides a seemingly innocuous line, a mere definition: "Snare" means a device, often consisting of a noose, used to kill or injure animals by entanglement, strangulation or decapitation.

Doesn't seem to be much danger there, until you look at how the word is defined in the current prohibition in the law: "No person shall place, set or attend any snare, net or similar device capable of taking or injuring any animal."

The more specific language in the new bill -- a device expressly used to kill or injure -- opens the way for relatively new, supposedly "humane" snares that are designed to trap and hold animals, but not harm them.

Forgive a bit of skepticism regarding claims of a humane snare. It's likely that manufacturers have made improvements to cut down on the frequency and perhaps severity of harm inflicted on animals, but it strains credulity to believe any device designed to trap and hold a wild animal by the neck does not pose a threat to that animal.

Indeed, the website for the "Collarum" -- one type of humane snare, claims: "70 percent of coyotes show no significant injury under international standards."

But that claim means 30 percent of coyotes are injured -- and that's according to the product's own marketing information.

Question: The bill, if passed, would still outlaw a snare used to kill or injure an animal. What about the 30 percent of cases in which animals are harmed? Would those break the law?

Even if the answer is no, it's time to say "enough." Enough with devices that break animals' legs. Enough with devices that squeeze the air out of them until they suffocate. Enough with devices that drown them, that cause them to injure themselves, that grab and hold them for hours or days by the neck.

If the purpose of allowing snares is "sport" or acquiring pelts, there is no conceivable argument that justifies their use. If it is the oft-cited "animal control," well, the Humane Society and other animal rights groups suggest several control methods that don't pose harm. Besides, studies show trapping and snaring to be unsure methods for controlling animals such as coyotes. Their rates for snagging target animals often are not very good.

We should be better than this. Don't bring snares back; any snares. And get rid of traps; all of them.